疫学因果关系及其证明

侵权法有关因果关系的一般理论有助于从总体上理解法律上的因果关系的性质与特征,却很难将其直接适用于对特定侵权类型的因果关系判断.疫学因果关系理论对司法审判实践中如何认定特定类型的环境侵权因果关系具有重要的指导意义,却未受到我国理论界的重视.将疫学型环境侵权的因果关系分为一般因与特定因,不但可以从理论上更为清晰地界定此类侵权因果关系的特征,还可以为在司法审判实践中判断因果关系是否存在提供参考框架.证明一般因存在与否的关键证据为流行病学证据,而证明特定因存在与否的证据则包括暴露学、临床医学、病理学等科学证据以及其他的一般证据.在对科学证据进行司法审查的基础上,结合其他证据和具体案情对因果关系作出司法判断,才有可能对疫学型环境侵权案件作出合理判决.

Causation of Epidemiological Environmental Tort and Its Proof

The general theories of causation in tort law could help us understand civil causations from an overview perspective. But it is hard to directly apply this kind of theories to judge causation of specific tort. Epidemiological causal theory is very useful in identifying the causal relations between conducts and damages in epidemiological environmental tort cases, but we haven''t developed detailed theories and methods for identifying legal causation of this kind of environmental tort. There are two kinds of causations in epidemiological environmental tort, one is general causation, which is relevant to type causal relation and the other is specific causation, which is relevant to individual causal relation. The dichotomy of causation will not only help us to depict the characteristics of epidemiological causation more clearly, but also provide us a framework for judging causation in the context of judicial practices. The critical evidences to prove general causation are epidemiological testimonies and the evidences to prove specific causation consist of exposure science testimonies, clinic or etiologic evidences and other normal evidences. It is necessary to judge the general causation by epidemiological methods which consist of cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and ecological studies. All these studies and conclusions should be reviewed by the court before becoming legal evidences. To judge the specific causation, the court should review the exposure evidences, toxicological evidences, etiological evidences, etc. Apart from scientific evidences, the court should also consider regulatory factors which are relevant to the defendant. It must be clearly affirmed that it is the court or judge, but not the scientists, who should judge the legal causation. On the bases of judicial review of the scientific evidences and after considering other evidences and details of the case, the court could make a reasonable judgment on an epidemiological environmental tort case.